ProPublica released a new report on Friday detailing Justice Clarence Thomas’ close relationship with the Koch brothers with previously undisclosed and extraordinarily damning new details.

According to ProPublica, the justice developed a friendship with the Kochs as they were funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into right-wing causes, many of which ended up before the Supreme Court. The brothers then used Thomas to raise money for their sprawling network, inviting him to speak at “donor events” that brought in millions of dollars.

He disclosed none of these activities on his annual disclosure forms, an obvious violation of federal ethics law.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    225
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So before, we could only assume from the preponderance of evidence that Thomas is corrupt as shit. Now we know it for a fact. And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices. They also own most of congress.

    End legalized bribery now.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices.

      It’s just the Koch brother now. Happily one of the wretched fucks died a few years ago.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I recall right there’s 3 brothers. Two were right wing scumbags, but I think the third wanted absolutely nothing to do with any of it

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s actually not legal to bribe a government official and charging the Kochs and others would be an excellent start (since going after a SC Justice is apparently difficult)

      • DragonAce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s actually not legal to bribe a government official

        Well of course not, thats why they’re not called “bribes”, they’re called “campaign donations”.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Problem is the people who are taking the bribery also get to determine the legality of it. SCOTUS could say that bribing a justice is totally legal and the only recourse would be a new amendment. Even then, I’m not sure what would stop them from ignoring the new amendment in their rulings.

        The problem with the court granting itself judicial review was that it didn’t come with checks and balances like the rest of the government functions.

  • matchphoenix@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    154
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    At minimum, it’s time to investigate Clarence Thomas. When the Democrats retake the house (hopefully in 2024 after the Republicans shutdown the government over nothing), they need to begin impeachment hearings in the House. I don’t care if the Senate will never remove him.

    • wagesj45@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s right. You don’t skip your responsibilities because you think another link down the chain won’t fulfill their duties. You do your job and make whoever skips out on their responsibility to put their name to it. Doesn’t matter if nothing practical comes of it. Integrity and faith in “the system” demands no less.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We shouldn’t be talking about impeachment at this point. We should be talking about prison. Injustice Thomas needs to go to prison.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      First impeachment, then a criminal trial ending in significant prison time.

      Edit: scratch that. Caging humans doesn’t decrease crime or otherwise benefit society. Give him several years of community service and permanently take away his licence to practice law in any way, shape or form.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right about incarceration. But there needs to be a further penalty. Monetary. Make him pay back all the dirty money. And maybe make him clean up dog shit for the community service.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. Let him keep the license but only so he can serve as a public defender in New Your City as part of a 10 year term of community service working 40 hours per week with one week of vacation per year. Then reduce the sentence for one day for each successfully defended case.

      • Gamey@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Im not an American but if people I know are put in a cage for fucking Weed I certainly want shitbags like him to go there too, it may not be helpful but certainly what he deserves!

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is I doubt anything he is doing is illegal. If it is though that is a much more realistic option than impeachment

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This needs more attention. Far easier to go after the people doing the bribing and if we do, it will get a lot of money out of politics.

          And thus make it easier to hold people like Clarence accountable.

          • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            We should be going after both but the GOP has just enough power to stop it. The country is on the line still, I hope we don’t fuck it up again.

            • treefrog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              For sure we should.

              But the bribers don’t have to be impeached and can be charged directly.

              If we can hold Trump accountable, we can hold the Koch family accountable too.

  • pottedmeat7910@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    He and is going to take every dime they can hustle and sign off on any “Supreme Court decision” that Koch’s lawyers hand to him.

    And he’s not even going to pretend to feel bad about it because there’s not a god-danged anyone is going to do to stop it. He’s a removed, bought and paid for.

  • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love the USA, but I’m surprised at how passive the average American has become. Thomas is actively making your lives worse in exchange for bribes. Where are the mass protests? SCOTUS will do nothing about it, and neither will Congress, if you don’t protest.

      • figaro@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This sounds like a joke but it actually isn’t.

        About 30% are openly in some kind of weird suicide pact, and the other 20% will vote for the same people as them, just while furrowing their eyebrows sometimes

    • Pappabosley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why the police force in America is equipped like an army, to quickly and violently suppress any protests. Then when you have a prison stay on your record, no more voting, struggling to get a job or even survive.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Title 18 section 1507 makes it illegal to protest outside a judges home, and they have indicated they will use the same law to prevent protests outside the court.

    • Vodik_VDK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t be surprised.

      Everyone here is either indoctrinated enough to be here for it, powerful enough to be above it, or disassociated enough to endure it.

      It’s just what happens after 22 years of social shock doctrine (I made that term up. I will not elaborate. Ama closed).

  • darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course, none of this actually matters in the slightest unless those ethics violations have consequences.

  • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does a wild bear shit in the woods? Of course he worked for the Kochs. Doesn’t everyone already know this?

    • gamer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen this term thrown around on Lemmy in different contexts, so I looked it up and the wikipedia page gives a very specific definition of that term relating to a type of economic situation. I don’t think that particular definition applies in this case, or does it?

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s less the economic definition than it is this:

        https://www.dictionary.com/browse/banana-republic

        noun - Usually Disparaging.

        1. a small, poor country, often reliant on a single export or limited resource, governed by an authoritarian regime and characterized by corruption and economic exploitation by foreign corporations conspiring with local government officials.

        2. any exploitative government that functions poorly for its citizenry while disproportionately benefiting a corrupt elite group or individual.

  • just_change_it@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    It literally doesn’t matter. The republicans don’t care and they’ve gerrymandered control away from the democrats so it can’t change.

    Even if democrats had control it would just be more of the same bullshit with some sugar coated feel good nonsense that still funnels wealth to the real owners of the country while appearing to make a difference.

    What do you do with the democratic process when the same people control the judges, the legislative branch, and the executive branch? The answer is nothing. You just continue on getting f’d like the cows we all are.

    This is not a nation of the people, it’s a nation of the owners.

    • Vodik_VDK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What do you do with the democratic process

      There’s more than one way to run a democracy, and more than one way to tally votes; it just so happens that the way we’re currently doing it —First Past The Post Voting— is utter shit; it’s the lynchpin of the two party system and systemic corruption.

      If we commit grassroots focus to electoral reforms in favor of Ranked Choice Voting then all these insidious actors will find power to be much more slippery.

      • just_change_it@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I want this but I don’t see any way of it happening in current republican controlled states. Seems really difficult in democrat ones too.

  • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like every case justice thomas was a part off and had a vote on the winning rule should be thrown out.

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Technically, neither one probably paid for it, it was a private jet that they probably own. It’s a gift no matter what and should have been disclosed, he’s unethical but also doing stuff that’s illegal in most government jobs. I think people are forgetting that SCOTUS is a job that the American people hired through the president. Half the court should be fired.

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          where donors are promised that if they pay a bunch of money—hundreds of thousands of dollars—they will be able to attend this super exclusive event where Clarence Thomas speaks. And these events include luxury travel on private jets for Thomas.

          I see what you’re saying, but this was a weird transaction and how much was he paid to speak at these things? What were they buying? The luxury travel is the least of it.

    • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You look at his financial statements. If there’s no record of him paying for the flight then it was necessarily paid by someone else. Propublica wouldn’t necessarily have access to those statements, but an IRS audit would. Assuming Congress would have the balls to look into it.

      So we don’t know right now, but given the corruption that has already been uncovered, I think there’s ample justification for a Congressional inquiry once Democrats take back the House.

    • gamer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      but how do you rule out the possibility that Thomas paid for the flight?

      Good point, and I don’t have an answer. However, I think it’d be interesting to see how often he travels in a private jet. Maybe he’s a high roller who jets all the time? Or maybe he decided to treat himself this one time?

    • krolden
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      An expense that big would be written off somehow on his taxes

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We need to look forward to 2024, take back the House and get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, along with the White House…maybe then, things will change.

    • bogo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see any scenario where Democrats take 60 seats in the Senate. The states have polarized so much, and the system favors the Republican states too much.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unlike the House, Senate races are state wide and can’t be gerrymandered.

        It’s going to take a major effort focused on reforming the Supreme Court to flip those seats, but looking at 2020, we flipped BOTH seats in Georgia which is about as red as it gets.

        • bogo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          The existing boundaries of the states is their built-in gerrymander. One voters opinion in Wyoming counts 50 times a Californian.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yup. I, personally, want 100% vote by mail. We’ve been doing it in my state since 2000, it’s safe, effective, results in high turnout and engagement, really nothing to hate.

            Oh, except Republicans lose when more people vote. ;)

    • krolden
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That didn’t work the last time why would it work this time?

  • Armen12@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    89
    ·
    1 year ago

    You people make it sound like Thomas is somehow responsible for the slew of right-wing decisions of the court and not the fact that trump got 3 judges in there

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are both problems, but if blatant corruption concerns you less than which way they naturally lean, you might be a partisan moron.

    • Serinus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anti-corruption should be bipartisan.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Clarence Thomas has been a skeevy moron for a loooong time. Of course Trump’s three appointments are why certain cases are getting pushed to SCOTUS, and why they’re being ruled on the way they are, and I don’t think anyone is trying to put that on Thomas alone.

      The court has shifted hard right, and Thomas is corrupt.

      • Armen12@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did I say he wasn’t? The fact that he’s being targeted alone is the issue I have, there’s 0 articles posted here talking about any other judge

        • VenoraTheBarbarian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh shit, do you have evidence of other justices engaging in a similar level of corruption?? I’m very interested to see any articles or evidence you have to that effect.

          Otherwise engage with the topic at hand, which is Thomas and the Koch brothers.

          • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito have some stank on them, but one is dead, and the other two were smart enough to cover their tracks better. Kavanaugh had hundreds of thousands of dollars in gambling debt magically disappear before he was seated. I wonder if “whoever” paid that off wants something in return…

            • VenoraTheBarbarian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              None of those rise to the rank of "wHy aReN’t wE tAlKiNg aBoUt ThEm?? though. The crimes or corruption of a dead guy, and Kavanaugh whose corruption was widely discussed before and during and after his confirmation, don’t warrant changing the topic away from crimes and corruption freshly unearthed about Thomas.

              Dude was being distracting on purpose.

              • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What are you talking about? Who is changing the topic? I’m saying ALL of the conservative Justices are as corrupt as Thomas. The Heritage Foundation, which is heavily connected to Koch, pushed Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. They’re ALL bought and paid for.

                • VenoraTheBarbarian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Did I say he wasn’t? The fact that he’s being targeted alone is the issue I have, there’s 0 articles posted here talking about any other judge

                  This is the comment I had a problem with, not yours. Thomas isn’t being “targeted” , he’s having huge scandals break. He isn’t being targeted alone the scandals of his peers have broken years ago (the ones that have broken thus far anyway, I’m sure there’s more we don’t know about yet). And those scandals were widely discussed at the time they broke.

                  Why would there be current articles about the other justices when we don’t have current scandals for them? That’s why I say the dude (not you, you’re good) was trying to change the topic.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve seen Alito come up a time or two, especially in the context of his insistence that there are no checks on the judicial branch. But he’s been in some comprimising ethical situations like Thomas has, too.

          People are only able to post here about news that is reported. The dominos are falling fast on Thomas. I’d bet that there is some kind of investigation already going on into Thomas’ and other SCOTUS justices around unethical payments, and that so much is being discovered about Thomas that the presumed investigation will become public quite soon. The other justices? Maybe they’re being looked at very closely, too, but their dominos aren’t falling as fast.

          We don’t know exactly why so many details about Thomas’ receiving payments under the table are reaching the media to be reported on, but somebody is digging, and they’re digging like it’s their job, because it very likely is. There’s a lot that is not publicly known, so quit acting like randos on the internet should be posting news stories that don’t exist. Or if they do exist, post them your fucking self.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Clarence had like a 15 year head start on the supreme Court. It’s going to take Sam a little while to catch up.

    • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s almost like having appointed supreme court judges without term limits is a colossally bad idea

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Like many things, the core concept was good for the time… To try to insulate the court from unstable politics and presidential whims, in the interests of a stable legal system that doesnt have to be afraid of being replaced when they displease the president.

        its just no one had the foresight to see that one side would betray the country 200 years in the future and turn the court into a corrupt, bought and paid for factory from which the undermining and destruction of democracy could be launched.

        The Supreme Court was thrown into chaos because republicans refused to appoint any justices under Obama (Edit. I neglected to specify in his last year, Thanks to the next poster for pointing that out), This giving them more than enough picks under their guy to permanantly damage the court and skew it forever in their favor short of radical action.

        • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think “in his last year” matters. That’s some calvinball nonsense McConnell pulled out of his ass to justify grinding the function of his branch of government to a halt and everyone just… went along with it. The year isn’t what mattered, what mattered was that Obama was a black Democratic president and McConnell thought he could get away with it.

        • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The Supreme Court was thrown into chaos because republicans refused to appoint any justices under Obama

          Now, now, Obama DID get Sotomayor and Kagan. McConnell only blocked Merrick Garland.

          That being said, in my lifetime, Democratic Presidents have only put FIVE members on the court, Republicans got 15. Carter is the one who drew a blank.

          Nixon/Ford got as many in their two terms as all the Democrats since then COMBINED.

          https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

          Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
          Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
          Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
          Kagan, Elena - Obama
          Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden

          Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
          Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
          Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
          Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
          Stevens, John Paul - Ford
          O’Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
          Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
          Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
          Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
          Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
          Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
          Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
          Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
          Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
          Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Now, now, Obama DID get Sotomayor and Kagan. McConnell only blocked Merrick Garland.

            You are right. I forgot to specify in his last year, that is entirely on me.

        • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “The Founders” (I hate that term) were trusting everyone would act in good faith, and be of good moral character. They were very mistaken.

      • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But if God didn’t want them to be there, they wouldn’t be. And we all know God doesn’t make mistakes, and knows best, don’t we? 'Murica! What Index Fund Would Jeebus Use?

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of the shit Thomas has slipped into his writing over the years has been used to justify the worst parts of the recent terms.

      Thomas is the most right-wing of the current justices, so much so that he has actually (partially) dissented when the other right-wingers don’t go far enough for his tastes.

      One of the others will write something, and he’ll come in with a concurrence and try to take it so much further, and he does it every single time he’s not given the majority opinion.